How Mike Judge & Co. Are Turning HBO’s “Silicon Valley” Into the Next “This Is Spinal Tap”

“Silicon Valley is populated by extremely comic characters, and it hasn’t really been mined at all before,” says producer and writer Dan O’Keefe.

Courtesy of HBO

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Silicon Valley satire nails the culture, geeks say,” the Los Angeles Times read. “Mike Judge’s Silicon Valley is satire, but feels like a documentary,” Slate notes. “Mike Judge skewers Silicon Valley with the satire of our dreams,” Wired raves.

That’s because Judge and company really, really did their homework. In crafting the first season of their new HBO comedy series Silicon Valley, the show’s creative core (Judge, Alec Berg, Clay Tarver, and Dan O’Keefe) pretty much did everything short of embedding with Tesla Motors to prepare for writing the show.

“We just wanted to get it right,” says Tarver, a former musician and an admittedly “accidental” writer. “There’s that funny thing when you see [the rock mockumentary] This Is Spinal Tap, you think that, ‘Oh, musicians are gonna hate them for doing that!’ But then musicians all love it—because it strikes the right tone. And that was our goal: If you knew more about this world than we did, you’d think we got it right.”

Silicon Valley follows a fumbling, disorganized team of young programmers and businessmen (a brilliant cast that includes Thomas Middleditch, T.J. Miller, Zach Woods, Kumail Nanjiani, and Martin Starr) as they start their own company and attempt to bring their revolutionary file-compression technology to market. (Before Judge was famous for Office Space and Beavis and Butt-Head, he was a programmer and briefly worked at a Silicon Valley starup. He hated it.) And in the pursuit of getting these things just right, the guys behind Silicon Valley quickly developed a passion for finding the funny in Northern California’s hub of tech, innovation, and unmanageably large egos.

It wasn’t too hard to find.

Their research included visiting tech accelerators and incubators. They studied hours of video, presentations, and (of course) TED Talks, so they could internalize the vernacular and on-stage pomposities of Silicon Valley figures. They hired Jonathan Dotan, a 33-year-old entrepreneur and consultant (now an associate producer on the series) who helps out a lot with nailing down the show’s technical nitty-gritty.

Judge, Berg, Tarver, and O’Keefe also went on tech “field trips” together. This included two days of immersing themselves at TechCrunch Disrupt, the annual conference where startups show off their product to potential investors. “For something called ‘Disrupt,’ it was so damn orderly,” O’Keefe, who worked with Berg on Seinfeld, recalls. (O’Keefe essentially gave the world Festivus.) “The conference had this punk-rock font to it, but you’d get in there and there were these very cheerful young people in Oxford shirts and crisply pressed T-shirts with names of their companies on it.”

The result of all their time and research is an incisive send-up of socially awkward, extremely intelligent tech insurgents, and also of the eccentric, cutthroat billionaire entrepreneurs who they must deal with. This first season (consisting of eight episodes) is a special blend of blistering and affectionate. (“Anytime you’ve got self-important, pompous, powerful people, it’s always fun to take a shit on them,” Berg told Wired.)

“Silicon Valley is populated by extremely comic characters, and it hasn’t really been mined at all before,” O’Keefe says. “It’s just a comedy writer’s dream…It’s as if you’re launching Sex and the City and no one has ever set a TV show in New York before.”

But as the four of them wrapped production on season one, they began to realize that their satire might not be capable of holding a candle to reality. Last January, Tom Perkins—cofounder of one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital firms—wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal in which he compared the “progressive war” on America’s megarich to Nazi persecution of Jews. “Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” Perkins asked provocatively.

This and subsequent comments were widely critiqued and mocked—and the people at Silicon Valley took note. “I thought we were harsh at the beginning, but we weren’t harsh enough!” Tarver says. “When you have billionaires in Silicon Valley comparing the 1 percent to Jews during the Holocaust, and all that shit…The politics are really interesting in Silicon Valley, because it sort of comes from this hippie place…but in the end, it’s a ruthlessly capitalistic place.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate